Our Lansing plant used to build the Grand Am style of car which included a Buick and Olds. The first 2 years there was a manual option for the car which means the floor pan needed to be different, and the firewall was different. In a weeks time of over 5,000 cars built on 2 shifts they averaged less than 2 a week of the stick shift. The money it took to have the seperate parts made it not cost affective so the manual was dropped. With the newer auto's and now up to 6 speeds there just aren't enough people in this class of car to make it cost affective. Most people who drive the Malibu size car are families and they don't want to spend all their time around town shifting gears.
Just looked at the Camry site and ONLY the very cheap basic Camry can have a manual. The basic LE and higher all are autos ONLY. I wouldn't be surprised if that goes away someday too.
I won't argue that point but I saved MORE than that up front on the initial purchase plus Malibu's are dirt cheap to insure, no one is gonna steal it and send it to a chop shop!, LOL...
I apologize for the personal remark, it was uncalled for. I guess the line " GM's don't start like a dependable Honda on a cold day" sorta ticked me off, but still no excuse. I will remain civil or remove my self from the board.
Just pointing out that the initial purchase price difference is not the lone factor in which car is cheaper to own. I don't think the new Accords can be stolen so easily (immobilizer system), so if they cost more to insure than a Malibu, it's because the value is higher. I think you get what you pay for, then it's up to you to make it worth what you paid for it. How long you keep the car, and what condition it's in when you do decide to sell it, are the major determining factors, in how much any car will cost to own. So I buy the car I want, then try to make it worth what I paid for it. If I subtract my last Accord's selling price from the purchase price, it cost me $1000/year. I can live with that. I hope to do at least as well with this one. Paying $4,000 less for a car doesn't help me, if I don't like it enough to keep it for 10 or more years.
>so if they cost more to insure than a Malibu, it's because the value is higher
I'm still hearing justificiation of a higher price for a car because, well, just because...
If a car costs more to insure it's most likely that it has a higher risk to the insurance company for theft, accident, and other kinds of damage. That price has NOTHING to do with a car's being better than another car or worse than another car.
If someone wants to justify their likes for a car and being gouged by dealers in this area (your area may be different) then that's okay with me. I just don't want to hear forever that somehow that makes the car better than another car. I expect others to respect my choice of vehicles.
>(immobilizer system),
Other cars have theft deterrent systems that keep the engine from running also. Honda isn't unique in any way.
Stands to reason. If a car sells for more, and you can sell it after 5 years for more, it will cost more to replace. Then simple logic says it will also cost more to insure. I don't think theft has anything to do with it. Did I say Immobilizer was only for Accords? I only said they aren't as easy to steal as they once were. Not a problem where I live anyway.
Buy the car YOU want, and I will buy the car I want. We should both be happy then, right?
I'm a Honda driver, and don't particularly care for the Malibu, but I can certainly tell they've come a long way in ten years, and have every right to be directly compared with Accord and Camry.
Isn't that the truth. Honestly, if the car you really want is a few $1k more, and it means you will keep it longer, be happier... Then get the car. Of course within reason. There is a thing called $$.
I know, that when I look a new lease. I will look at what I want. Slow down and research, I am really focusing on a fun and fast engine.
But, for the same payment I paid on my 06 Accord SE lease, I have loaded GM car that has all the features, except for a V6. Features, that can be found on a $30k Passat I looked at. Perhaps a few more features. So that is good! Remote start comes in handy in the winter.
>so if they cost more to insure than a Malibu, it's because the value is higher. >Then simple logic says it will also cost more to insure
But that's still not complete. The insurance cost represents the probability of loss to the insurance company. Factors such as the driver's age, driving record individually and for a group, color of car, equipment on the car, and cost to repair are examples of factors in the actuarial prediction for insurance costs. I.E., if Civic coupes are owned by people who are more interested in racing from stoplights, driving at speeds far above the limit, driving carelessly, and the repair costs for damage from relatively minor hits are high then the cost of ownership for the vehicle will be higher than someone owning another brand of car quite capable of going from A to B but the mind set of the owners of the second brand doesn't lean toward the race car mentality.
A higher insurance cost on an equivalent car doesn't mean it's worth more.
You just have to remember why most people are here, it's because they are either reseaching a purchase or have problems with their vehicle. Most owners are happy with their vehicles and are out driving them not hanging around here looking for something to go wrong.
But that's still not complete. The insurance cost represents the probability of loss to the insurance company. Factors such as the driver's age, driving record individually and for a group, color of car, equipment on the car, and cost to repair are examples of factors in the actuarial prediction for insurance costs.
I thought we were talking about why the Accord would cost more to insure than the Malibu. I assumed we were talking about the same driver, same driving record, same color, same equipment, etc. :confuse: I think if you bought a Malibu that cost $23k or an Accord that cost $23k the insurance cost would be the same, because the value would be the same.
It's not that both cars cost XXXK, some models are much more sought after by crooks. Malibu's generally won't end up in a chop shop I guess their parts just are not in demand..
Thats because they keep on ticking and ticking and never break so there is no aftermarket for parts. Seriously insurance costs reflect a lot on how much it costs to fix in an accident and foreign cars for the most part usually cost more to repair so the insurance is going to cost more.
Hondas were a very popular choice of thieves years ago, because many Honda models had interchangeable parts, including engines and transmissions. The Integra was the big target, because it had a higher performance engine, that could easily be swapped into an Accord or Prelude. The cars were also very easy to steal back then. I doubt Accords are stolen much anymore, mainly because of the Immobilizer system, and you can just buy a V6 engine in an Accord now, instead of putting the higher performance 4 cylinder engine from an Acura TSX in it. In the early 90's you could not get a V6 in an Accord, so the only way to get a power boost, besides home-made turbo, was the Acura 4 cylinder engine.
Was wondering what your choice would be. I have to decide between a 1991 Honda Civic or 1987 Chevy Beretta. The Civic has 168,000 miles on it. Engine/trans good. Needs front ball joints. Test drived - not bad! Little rust and no dents. Asking $775.
1987 Chevy Beretta has 136,000 miles and some rust. The brakes felt damp (small line where it seeps out a connector) - flange ends of brake lines. Asking $750. New battery, air filter, manifold.
I would say there are going to be continuing problems with either car. The Chevy will be a whole lot cheaper for parts than the Honda will be. Most likely 1/2 the price as the same parts are in use in a whole bunch of smaller GM cars. Check out a couple of parts stores for some common parts like starter, altanator, brake parts etc.
Chances are, the Civic will be easier to keep rolling than the Beretta. There are a lot of 91 Civics left on the road, whereas the Beretta is on the verge of extinction. GM stopped making the Beretta and Corsica for good reason. Brakes, intake manifolds, and alternators are just a few of the components that needed frequent attention. Check the reliability ratings.
Either way, have the car you seem to like inspected. It is cheaper to get parts for a GM car. But, how many parts would need attention? I would probably go with the Civic, only because its fairly newer than the beretta. Otherwise pick the one you like. If they were closer in age, well it would be a toss up.
I have to agree. Most people I know with Camry and Honda don't have problems until after 100k miles. have never purchased Japneese since I want to support America. After owning my 2001 Malibu I can no longer afford to buy GM. List of problems as follows(have prof from dealer) Intake Manifold leaked and replaced 34k Transmision Rebuilt at 38K BCM body control module failed 3 times in 2 years(left me stranded each time)
Ignition cylinder replaced 3 times( anti theft system failure) AC pully failure( GM makes a modular AC unit ,can't replace pully must replace whole compressor 46K
I purchased and extra warranty which expired one month after the ac was replaced. Now I have problems with lights cutting off and on, my be BCM again.
There are a lot of good cars out there, both domestic and imports. But, if you do choose an "American" brand, make sure it really is "American" - make sure it was built in the USA with mostly North American parts. I know that rules out many so-called "American" cars.
I drove a brand new Malibu, 4L, A two years ago in Montana. Was impressed by the engine and transmission. But the new car had a rattling noise in dashboard and annoying reflection in the wind shield from the top of dashboard. GM has a way to go to be on par with Honda. Lehrer
Mcdawgg: I found that out when I decided on the Ford Fusion. I was unhappy with my 08 Accord because Honda would not back their product. I started to look at ratings and for any kind of dirt I could find on a short list of cars that would work for my family. I included ford on the list because the Fusion has great reviews and I had luck with Fords years ago. I did not include GM because of a brand new Firebird that I bought in 1984 and I told them just what I told Honda, I will never buy from them again. I felt that buying a Fusion was good because its a great car and my tax money did not bail Ford out so I went to the dealership and found out that the Fusion is made in Mexico. I bought it anyway because it has high ratings and the profit does comes back to the USA. The funny thing is Honda and Toyota were imported for years and they were cheap and reliable now they are made here and they are expensive and not so reliable??? Go figure
Disagree. Toyota and Honda are very reliable, and most say they are still tops, if you look at the whole company, not just one car. Besides, most cars today are very reliable. Profit comes back? Well, only a very, very, very small amount compared to the large amount of dollars a car built in the USA with a majority of the parts made in North America keeps in the USA. The Accord and Camry have the Fusion beat by far in that regard.
Why would GM even mention Honda and Toyota in their commercials, if they did not feel they were threatened by them. GM knows they are one of the better brands as far as a well rounded, valued car company. I think it is silly to bring them up in the commercial.
Now, lets say they make a very good product, holds up well, but for me, will its value be worth anything in a year? That alone is reason enough not to get the car. A car is the second largest investment, other than a house. So why would I put that much into a car that is worth so much less in a year. Why should I eat their negative value? At this time, GM's car are not priced according to their true value.
But, I will say my 08 Pontiac G6, with 25,000 miles has been a quiet, 95% rattle free ride. My 06 Accord, had plenty of rattles, and was more noisy than the G6. However, I hate the engine in the G6, miss the Accord engine! Swap them out, and I would be okay. The G6 is pretty solid, and actually impressed.
And THAT'S where the value of buying the Hondas lay. Long term ownership.
I had a USED Chevy HHR...within 14k I had the steering column replaced, the headliner taken out for a leak, the shifter replaced, rotors, ALL TSBs!! Pulled doen the hatch and the plastic cup came off in my hand. Pulled up a door lock and it came off..(apparently they are pressed on and not threaded anymore)
Paid $12.5 for an 11 month old car with a sticker of $24K at a new car lot. (The original owner took a royal beating) I was getting $7500 trade offers LOL...
Now those who say GM is suddenly great and reliable I say it takes years to design a car. Anything sold today was designed before the Fall when cutting corners was routine. I would look at GM again 4 years from now when TODAY'S NEW GM is designing cars being built tomorrow...
I drove the Chevy Malibu,,,yeah it had more toys but I had no confidence in the car at all. I know this. My Honda will have issues..Hell the new BMW 335 has fuel pump issues that cannot be resolved. But I am confident after researching both cars the Honda will have less of those pesky fit and finish issues. The Accord is worth $3000 more then a Malibu all day long,,,and in 6 years that money will be returned. I bought a Honda Care Wrap 84/80K EW for $655...The price of EWS are lower for a reason... $650 0 deductible for 84 months? HONDA BACKEDWARRANTY? All day long...Yeah I bought it online but the Honda Dealer I bought it from (Saccucci Honda) could actually sell it for that price!!
100K Drive train warranties are a joke. Thats not what goes wrong in cars. Most of the time it's $300 crap over and over again. Hyundai used the long warranty to sell cars so Chevy is trying it. But like Hyundai Chevy will need years to overcome their perception and what they are doing NOW to design, choose vendors, to build cars 3 years from now will make all the difference.
Its not all about the assembly line getting better. Its about designing a reliable car made from reliable parts first...then assembled well. the NEW GM is only months old. We shall see what they put out in a few years,,, Tha will make all the difference. Honda and Toyota know this. They also know todays GM cares are made out the past's bad habits...
That was very well put! Points exactly!! Start out by looking at each individual part, and then work your way up. Considering the Malibu is made up of a lot of older parts, how can we possibly call is new? The issue lies within creating so many cars, that the rest is irrelevant to them, such as quality. If it can't be seen by the eye when buying it new, then their good to go! Even now, I still see less than quality parts being used, used in areas of hard use. Let alone working your way into the engine.
"Disagree. Toyota and Honda are very reliable, and most say they are still tops, if you look at the whole company, not just one car"
Just one car? Click at the link below if you think its just one car. Looks like the 09 Accord is having the same issue as my 08. Remember this is only 1 web site that you have to become a member just to post your complaint so you can only wonder how many people are really having issue's
".....Why would GM even mention Honda and Toyota in their commercials, if they did not feel they were threatened by them."
Even though I cringe at those Chevy commercials, I would say it's for the same reason Hyundai mentions them in their commercials. They know that they have a major perception problem about the differences in the brands, and they are trying to get people to notice their newer products.
Their products are essentially not "new". Just new sheet metal and duplicates off other models. It's not new technology. Its a new look, and perhaps very good look, but is it truly being built with new heart and consideration? I am not convinced, they have little funds anyway.
What is going to convince the consumer that they are truly new? Notice, more SUV"s? Yep! If you didn't know, the new Malibu shares alot with the old G6. The Malibu is just a Pontiac.
"I drove a brand new Malibu, 4L, A two years ago in Montana. Was impressed by the engine and transmission. But the new car had a rattling noise in dashboard and annoying reflection in the wind shield from the top of dashboard. GM has a way to go to be on par with Honda". ---------
Keep in mind that was a rental.
GM is on par as far as I'm concerned. I have had my 08 Malibu for over a year and not one rattle or issue. My friend has an Accord and every time he sits in my car he comments on how much he likes it. I always tell him, buy one!
It isn't fair to judge a car if it is a rental unless it has zero miles and you are the very first customer to drive it. If it only had one rattle that says a lot for the car since it is used and abused daily and I've seen reflections in lots of cars I have driven. I haven't seen a dash that shined unless they put some kind of protectent on it as all car makers know enough not to produce shiny dashes.
Right, you can get an idea of how the car will hold up over time and mileage, from a rental. For instance, I had an 06 Impala as a rental, and it felt older than my 03 Accord with twice the age, and three times the mileage. I doubt that car had gone through more abuse/use than my car, but it sure felt old, with only 15k miles on it. That can't be good for resale value.
Well then as you said it only had a rattle in the dash which could be fixed very easy and a glare off the dash which should be fixed with a little soap and water to get off whatever was put on the dash that made it shine as I haven't seen a dash from the factory in many years that gave off a glare and I have driven a few rentals these past years. I have only owned about 4 foreign cars in my long life and these past 30 years mostly G.M. cars and have had very good luck with them. Granted I don't keep them 200K as some do but you tend to know how a car is going to go in the long run after about 3 years and I feel safe saying I think they all would go the distance if proper maintained. I also feel most cars now days will go 200K without much trouble if proper maintainance is preformed and driven senseablely.
I never use any cleaners and chemicals on my dash. However, I really should use a protector. When I traded my 06 Accord, the dealer already put on a glop of shiny stuff all over the inside. That would be its first to ever have anything on the dash. Also, it eventually ends up putting haze from the gases on your windows. It is not supposed to be shiny. Oh well, its not mine any more.
Also, I honestly don't think 08 G6 would last that long without some major repairs. I know that my transmission will need replaced sooner or later down the road. I won't have to worry about it, but someone will! Way sooner than expected! I am thinking sometime under 100k. I have 25k and its already showing signs, and has been since new!
I would wonder wonder about newer GM cars lasting as long. But that's just me. Sure its a Pontiac, but really no different than any other recent GM product. Such as the Malibu.
".....What is going to convince the consumer that they are truly new? Notice, more SUV"s? Yep! If you didn't know, the new Malibu shares alot with the old G6. The Malibu is just a Pontiac. "
First, there are no new "SUV's". They are a trio of "CUV's". Now this may sound like splitting hairs, but there is a HUGE difference in a new Equinox getting 32 mpg vs. a new Tahoe getting 20mpg.
I do know that GM is using older platforms. But they are global platforms that have gotten good reviews elsewhere, replacing even OLDER NA platforms. IIRC, the G6 is an Epsillon 2 platform, while the Malibu is Epsillon 1. Similar?? Yes. But if you look at the reviews, the G6 was always "eh.....mezza mezza" while the Aura and Malibu are actually looked at as decent, if not better than most in their class. BOTH cars have scored better than the Camry in tests, but not the Accord ( which is regarded by everyone as the standard bearer in the class).
The Difference? They are actually putting more money and thought into the design of the newer models, and it's showing.
All you need to look at is the trio of new CUV's. All are based on the Theta platform, which underpinned the former Equinox and Torrent. When I read this, I cringed, as the reviews on the formers vehicles were nothing short of horrendous. Now, all of a sudden, they are leaps and bounds better. Even Caddy has put the SRX on this platform.
How is this possible? Direct Injected 4 bangers in the Equinox and Terrain. DI, DOHC V-6's as options, and standard in the Caddy, as opposed to old pushrod sixes. Better suspension components. Better materials for the interior. Better attention to fit and finish.
Well, the new Malibu, while it has that driveline as the base, does offer the 6 speed auto w/ the 4. The new Lacrosse will offer the 182 Hp version of the 2.4 w/ the 6 speed as well. The Equinox and Terrain offer that setup as well.
I have driven the 6spd auto with the 4 GM engine and it was less than impressive. It was a very basic engine. Not Bad, not awesome, just basic, A to B engine. And, the sporty self shifting option was no fun, as it was not programmed truly for driver control. No real torque felt at all. Now compare this with a Honda engine and you'll feel the difference. When I had my 06 Accord 4cyl, people thought it was V6 at first, of course later it did feel slower, but it was fairly torquey at the lower end and it simply rolled with minimal trouble. Try pushing or getting some sport out of the 4cyl GM engine and you'll have a bit more trouble. Or.....my 08 Jetta with the 2.5, 5cyl engine would simply blow my 2.4 off the road! Literally! Just too much torque off the line.A way more efficient engine. Why do you think I have been pulled over in that car, and not the G6? Look down and oops. Anyway. Both the Accord and the "other" car would leave my measly 2.4 stranded. I should have gotten that 2.0T engine car when I had the chance. Of course, not a GM. Get the V6 if you go GM!! It'll be worth the upgrade.
I am not sure what is keeping their 4's from being truly peppy.
Why is it you see more people get the 6 in a GM car? Well, they make more 6's, probably making more 4's now, but you lose all the fun!!
"The car is fast. Not fast for a four-cylinder but simply fast. I never felt like it was lacking in power, and considering the way I typically drive on my commute down Pacific Coast Highway, that's pretty amazing." — Editor in Chief Karl Brauer
"Can't ask for much more than this from a four-cylinder — plenty of pull for passing and merging, quiet at high engine speeds and very frugal. I rarely was left wishing for more power. Unless you absolutely have to have V6 power, the four-cylinder will satisfy 90 percent of the time." — Senior Road Test Editor Ed Hellwig
"I settled into the cockpit fully expecting the vehicle to feel a bit light on juice in certain situations. But this was never the case. I put the car through its paces on highways, on city streets and up and down steep mountain roads in the foothills near my apartment. The Accord proved itself up to the task in each and every circumstance that came its way." — Associate Editor Warren Clarke
"The Accord is the first car I've driven in some time that has made me seriously reconsider my affection for bigger engines. The power is there, and the refinement is there — there isn't even a hint of that frenetic thrashing I used to associate with inline fours. If I can have good fuel economy without giving up quietness and power, count me in." — Road Test Editor Brian Moody
-Edmunds' Editors opinions of the 2003 160 horse Accord.
Consider that the Accord bvdj84 speaks of had an additional 10 horses (after the SAE revised numbers the actual increase equated to approximately ten even though the technical specs increased by 6 for that year). I have an 06 4-cylinder as well. When passing at 75 MPH on the highway, you know its a four cylinder, with a quick-acting transmission and sporty throtle response, I can see where people would feel like the engine was bigger than it really is.
When I would go to pass someone with my 08 Accord 4 banger I would push on the gas and it would hesitate then if I got to aggressive it would jump from the lethargic state to almost red line. That used to drive me nuts. I did find out that there is a TSB for the valve ping control that causes those symptoms.
I don't doubt that Honda makes about the best 4-banger for a mid-size sedan but it was still obviously a 4 cyl. to me. I took the V6 out the same day and it was a definitely a step up in power and response. Compared to older V6's maybe, but today's V6 typically have a minimum 240hp, most 250+.
Comments
I'm still hearing justificiation of a higher price for a car because, well, just because...
If a car costs more to insure it's most likely that it has a higher risk to the insurance company for theft, accident, and other kinds of damage.
That price has NOTHING to do with a car's being better than another car or worse than another car.
If someone wants to justify their likes for a car and being gouged by dealers in this area (your area may be different) then that's okay with me. I just don't want to hear forever that somehow that makes the car better than another car. I expect others to respect my choice of vehicles.
>(immobilizer system),
Other cars have theft deterrent systems that keep the engine from running also. Honda isn't unique in any way.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Buy the car YOU want, and I will buy the car I want. We should both be happy then, right?
There is a thing called $$.
I know, that when I look a new lease. I will look at what I want. Slow down and research, I am really focusing on a fun and fast engine.
But, for the same payment I paid on my 06 Accord SE lease, I have loaded GM car that has all the features, except for a V6. Features, that can be found on a $30k Passat I looked at. Perhaps a few more features. So that is good! Remote start comes in handy in the winter.
>Then simple logic says it will also cost more to insure
But that's still not complete. The insurance cost represents the probability of loss to the insurance company. Factors such as the driver's age, driving record individually and for a group, color of car, equipment on the car, and cost to repair are examples of factors in the actuarial prediction for insurance costs. I.E., if Civic coupes are owned by people who are more interested in racing from stoplights, driving at speeds far above the limit, driving carelessly, and the repair costs for damage from relatively minor hits are high then the cost of ownership for the vehicle will be higher than someone owning another brand of car quite capable of going from A to B but the mind set of the owners of the second brand doesn't lean toward the race car mentality.
A higher insurance cost on an equivalent car doesn't mean it's worth more.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I thought we were talking about why the Accord would cost more to insure than the Malibu. I assumed we were talking about the same driver, same driving record, same color, same equipment, etc. :confuse:
I think if you bought a Malibu that cost $23k or an Accord that cost $23k the insurance cost would be the same, because the value would be the same.
1987 Chevy Beretta has 136,000 miles and some rust. The brakes felt damp (small line where it seeps out a connector) - flange ends of brake lines. Asking $750. New battery, air filter, manifold.
If they were closer in age, well it would be a toss up.
Most people I know with Camry and Honda don't have problems until after 100k miles. have never purchased Japneese since I want to support America.
After owning my 2001 Malibu I can no longer afford to buy GM.
List of problems as follows(have prof from dealer)
Intake Manifold leaked and replaced 34k
Transmision Rebuilt at 38K
BCM body control module failed 3 times in 2 years(left me stranded each time)
Ignition cylinder replaced 3 times( anti theft system failure)
AC pully failure( GM makes a modular AC unit ,can't replace pully must replace whole compressor 46K
I purchased and extra warranty which expired one month after the ac was replaced.
Now I have problems with lights cutting off and on, my be BCM again.
If I do buy American it will be Ford not GM.
There are a lot of good cars out there, both domestic and imports. But, if you do choose an "American" brand, make sure it really is "American" - make sure it was built in the USA with mostly North American parts. I know that rules out many so-called "American" cars.
Lehrer
Now, lets say they make a very good product, holds up well, but for me, will its value be worth anything in a year? That alone is reason enough not to get the car. A car is the second largest investment, other than a house. So why would I put that much into a car that is worth so much less in a year. Why should I eat their negative value?
At this time, GM's car are not priced according to their true value.
But, I will say my 08 Pontiac G6, with 25,000 miles has been a quiet, 95% rattle free ride. My 06 Accord, had plenty of rattles, and was more noisy than the G6.
However, I hate the engine in the G6, miss the Accord engine! Swap them out, and I would be okay. The G6 is pretty solid, and actually impressed.
I had a USED Chevy HHR...within 14k I had the steering column replaced, the headliner taken out for a leak, the shifter replaced, rotors, ALL TSBs!! Pulled doen the hatch and the plastic cup came off in my hand. Pulled up a door lock and it came off..(apparently they are pressed on and not threaded anymore)
Paid $12.5 for an 11 month old car with a sticker of $24K at a new car lot. (The original owner took a royal beating) I was getting $7500 trade offers LOL...
Now those who say GM is suddenly great and reliable I say it takes years to design a car. Anything sold today was designed before the Fall when cutting corners was routine. I would look at GM again 4 years from now when TODAY'S NEW GM is designing cars being built tomorrow...
I drove the Chevy Malibu,,,yeah it had more toys but I had no confidence in the car at all. I know this. My Honda will have issues..Hell the new BMW 335 has fuel pump issues that cannot be resolved. But I am confident after researching both cars the Honda will have less of those pesky fit and finish issues. The Accord is worth $3000 more then a Malibu all day long,,,and in 6 years that money will be returned. I bought a Honda Care Wrap 84/80K EW for $655...The price of EWS are lower for a reason... $650 0 deductible for 84 months? HONDA BACKEDWARRANTY? All day long...Yeah I bought it online but the Honda Dealer I bought it from (Saccucci Honda) could actually sell it for that price!!
100K Drive train warranties are a joke. Thats not what goes wrong in cars. Most of the time it's $300 crap over and over again. Hyundai used the long warranty to sell cars so Chevy is trying it. But like Hyundai Chevy will need years to overcome their perception and what they are doing NOW to design, choose vendors, to build cars 3 years from now will make all the difference.
Its not all about the assembly line getting better. Its about designing a reliable car made from reliable parts first...then assembled well. the NEW GM is only months old. We shall see what they put out in a few years,,, Tha will make all the difference. Honda and Toyota know this. They also know todays GM cares are made out the past's bad habits...
Not scientific but considering Honda customers have far higher expectations I would have expected more "problem threads" and a lot more posts.......
I used the Coupe threads because that's the car I bought and far less clutter. The car is basically the same.
How do we even know that GM is even "new"?
Just one car? Click at the link below if you think its just one car. Looks like the 09 Accord is having the same issue as my 08. Remember this is only 1 web site that you have to become a member just to post your complaint so you can only wonder how many people are really having issue's
http://www.carcomplaints.com/recent_trends.shtml
Even though I cringe at those Chevy commercials, I would say it's for the same reason Hyundai mentions them in their commercials. They know that they have a major perception problem about the differences in the brands, and they are trying to get people to notice their newer products.
What is going to convince the consumer that they are truly new? Notice, more SUV"s? Yep! If you didn't know, the new Malibu shares alot with the old G6.
The Malibu is just a Pontiac.
---------
Keep in mind that was a rental.
GM is on par as far as I'm concerned. I have had my 08 Malibu for over a year and not one rattle or issue. My friend has an Accord and every time he sits in my car he comments on how much he likes it. I always tell him, buy one!
Also, I honestly don't think 08 G6 would last that long without some major repairs. I know that my transmission will need replaced sooner or later down the road. I won't have to worry about it, but someone will! Way sooner than expected! I am thinking sometime under 100k. I have 25k and its already showing signs, and has been since new!
I would wonder wonder about newer GM cars lasting as long. But that's just me.
Sure its a Pontiac, but really no different than any other recent GM product. Such as the Malibu.
The Malibu is just a Pontiac. "
First, there are no new "SUV's". They are a trio of "CUV's". Now this may sound like splitting hairs, but there is a HUGE difference in a new Equinox getting 32 mpg vs. a new Tahoe getting 20mpg.
I do know that GM is using older platforms. But they are global platforms that have gotten good reviews elsewhere, replacing even OLDER NA platforms. IIRC, the G6 is an Epsillon 2 platform, while the Malibu is Epsillon 1. Similar?? Yes. But if you look at the reviews, the G6 was always "eh.....mezza mezza" while the Aura and Malibu are actually looked at as decent, if not better than most in their class. BOTH cars have scored better than the Camry in tests, but not the Accord ( which is regarded by everyone as the standard bearer in the class).
The Difference? They are actually putting more money and thought into the design of the newer models, and it's showing.
All you need to look at is the trio of new CUV's. All are based on the Theta platform, which underpinned the former Equinox and Torrent. When I read this, I cringed, as the reviews on the formers vehicles were nothing short of horrendous. Now, all of a sudden, they are leaps and bounds better. Even Caddy has put the SRX on this platform.
How is this possible? Direct Injected 4 bangers in the Equinox and Terrain. DI, DOHC V-6's as options, and standard in the Caddy, as opposed to old pushrod sixes. Better suspension components. Better materials for the interior. Better attention to fit and finish.
What engine do you have in it? the 3.5 or 3.6??? Is it a 4 or 6 speed auto??
---------
Well, there is rough use abuse and then there is abusive abuse. People do some pretty harsh things to rentals.
That said, I had an 09 Altima rental in Vegas with 500 miles on it and it has rattles and loose trim already.
Get the V6 if you go GM!! It'll be worth the upgrade.
I am not sure what is keeping their 4's from being truly peppy.
Why is it you see more people get the 6 in a GM car? Well, they make more 6's, probably making more 4's now, but you lose all the fun!!
-------------------------
What were they driving, 1986 Cavaliers?
I have driven the 4 banger Accord and it feels like a 4... nothing else.
As for the Malibu, the vast majority of them on the road are I-4s. I rarely see another V6, one in 10 maybe.
"Can't ask for much more than this from a four-cylinder — plenty of pull for passing and merging, quiet at high engine speeds and very frugal. I rarely was left wishing for more power. Unless you absolutely have to have V6 power, the four-cylinder will satisfy 90 percent of the time." — Senior Road Test Editor Ed Hellwig
"I settled into the cockpit fully expecting the vehicle to feel a bit light on juice in certain situations. But this was never the case. I put the car through its paces on highways, on city streets and up and down steep mountain roads in the foothills near my apartment. The Accord proved itself up to the task in each and every circumstance that came its way." — Associate Editor Warren Clarke
"The Accord is the first car I've driven in some time that has made me seriously reconsider my affection for bigger engines. The power is there, and the refinement is there — there isn't even a hint of that frenetic thrashing I used to associate with inline fours. If I can have good fuel economy without giving up quietness and power, count me in." — Road Test Editor Brian Moody
-Edmunds' Editors opinions of the 2003 160 horse Accord.
Consider that the Accord bvdj84 speaks of had an additional 10 horses (after the SAE revised numbers the actual increase equated to approximately ten even though the technical specs increased by 6 for that year). I have an 06 4-cylinder as well. When passing at 75 MPH on the highway, you know its a four cylinder, with a quick-acting transmission and sporty throtle response, I can see where people would feel like the engine was bigger than it really is.
When I would go to pass someone with my 08 Accord 4 banger I would push on the gas and it would hesitate then if I got to aggressive it would jump from the lethargic state to almost red line. That used to drive me nuts. I did find out that there is a TSB for the valve ping control that causes those symptoms.